Addition u/s 68 - genuineness of the claim of sundry creditors - Held that:- Most of the liabilities were of the current year or immediately preceding year and the accounts were active in nature and the transactions were being carried out for the current year as well as in the subsequent year. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the addition was rightly deleted and find no infirmity in his order which is sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee - DB I .....

it has ignored the specific defects pointed out in the expenses debited to profit and loss account through it has been upheld the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3)?" "2. Whether the order of the Tribunal is not perverse on facts as it has ignored the fact that the assessee did not produce before the AO the creditors to discharge its onus of genuineness of the claim of sundry creditors?" 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The observations made by CIT (Appeal) in .....

ng at the adverse conclusion, in this regard. (b) It is also an undisputed fact that these trading liabilities were not written off in the books of account of the assessee, as such. On the other hand, the same have been shown as payable to the creditors, the fact which was duly confirmed by the appellant, during the assessment proceeding, itself. Thus, in my considered view, even there was no prime-fascia basis to assume that such liabilities have become infructuous, in any manner, as envisaged .....

ssion of such liabilities u/s 41(1) of the Act. (d) As discussed above, the courts have also held that the prime obligation, in this regard, lies on the AO, it he intends to consider the trading liability, as deemed income u/s 41(1) of the Act. From the records, it is evident that the AO has failed to discharge the above onus as he could not substantiate her action with necessary supporting material as such. In the case, she has simply arrived at the adverse conclusion as there was no compliance .....

ment order. However, it is difficult to understand that why the same were not considered at all and a contrary finding was given in the impugned order, in this regard. Conclusion: From the above detailed deliberation, it is evident that the AO has invoked the provision of Section 41(1), i.r.o., trading liability under consideration, rather in haste and cryptic manner, without following the requisite procedure/preconditions, as stipulated by the various courts, as discussed above. From the record .....